I do enjoy reading the blogs, especially this one and the accompanying comments. Heck, I even like PC.

/Robbie

Secrets the NY Times would never dare to print and my blogging brethren, FAIR and Fmragtops, won’t shut up about it. Tomorrow, July 4th aka Independence Day, will feature the start of a new WAR.

I did several guest radio segments over the past couple of years and found the transition from writing to speaking takes a diverse talent.

I noticed from a recent post you are a long-suffering White Sox so I must assume you a native Chicagoan as I am also. We are probably the only two bloggers in the world that can make that claim Chicago and White Sox fans.

Once again Best of Luck and I will be listening.

…Supreme Court has made a hash of American exceptionalism by interpreting the law not so much according to the Constitution as much as how their rulings will play in the salons of Europe. This takes the Declaration’s admonition of having “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” to its outer limits as the Court subsumes American exceptionalism in order to advance theories of government that are both foreign and unwelcome.

I was watching a program on c-span2 last year with Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O’Connor. Don’t recall the topic but is was a sort of guided conversation among the three of them with a moderator of sorts. It aired after Roper v. Simmons (03-0633), where SCOTUS ruled that the death penalty for minors was unconstitutional [previously 16 and 17yrs was allowable]. Scalia and O’Connor were in dissent. Breyer was in support. On this program Breyer said they actually looked to the EU and their laws to determine some of their reasoning and that he found that useful at times. Scalia’s reponse to him was “that is useful when you are *writing* and constitution, but not when you are *interpreting* one.”

Hear here.

I also found it interesting how much sharper in general O’Connor and Scalia were compared to Breyer in all their responses.